Pro Filter or Not?

P

PhotoSnapper

Messages
88
Edit My Images
No
I'm in the process of buying a filter for my new Tamron 17-50mm lens (67mm) and wondering whether it's worth spending the extra money and buying a Hoya Pro filter or just purchasing a normal Hoya 67mm Haze UV Filter?

If anyone has any other filter recommendations (below £50) I would appreciate your input.

Cheers
 
If you insist on buying a UV, buy the best you can. It needs to be mulitcoated on both sides other wise it'll riun your pictures with errononeous light bouncing around between the lens element and the filter.
I still dont bother at all, but people seem insitant on using them for peace of mind.
 
Hoya Pro-1 UV Digital gets my recommendation, I'd only bother though if you're in an environment where it may be physically touched, and where the hood doesn't give enough protection.

Don't expect anything image quality wise...
 
PhotoSnapper said:
I'm in the process of buying a filter for my new Tamron 17-50mm lens (67mm) and wondering whether it's worth spending the extra money and buying a Hoya Pro filter or just purchasing a normal Hoya 67mm Haze UV Filter?

If anyone has any other filter recommendations (below £50) I would appreciate your input.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Are you using the lens to shoot film then?
 
TCR4x4 said:
I think he is trying to make the point UV filters arent needed on Digital. Not for blocking out UV anyway.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Because they are mis selling it. All digital cameras have a built in UV filter built onto the high pass filter in front of the sensor, so a UV filter will do nothing. There are reasons why you shouldn't bother with a filter for 'protection', might be worth doing a quick search on here to read the arguments!

Then if you still feel you want one, buy a better quality one such as the Hoya you mention. But do consider if you really need one first!
 
Last edited:
in the past i used cheap hoya filters and they ruined my shots
unsharp. soft etc
i only siscovered this when i met a guy in a bird hide, he had same set up as me
30d and 100-400. his photos were much better
only difference was i had cheap uv filters
took them off and WOW what a difference
i did buy a hoya pro 1 and that was very good, no loss of quality
but i broke it a while ago and never replaced it,
im looking at getting another, is there any better ones on the market or as the hoya been improved
 
* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
One more to add:

* The degradation you see tends to increase with increasing focal length
 
marky.b said:
in the past i used cheap hoya filters and they ruined my shots
unsharp. soft etc
i only siscovered this when i met a guy in a bird hide, he had same set up as me
30d and 100-400. his photos were much better
only difference was i had cheap uv filters
took them off and WOW what a difference
i did buy a hoya pro 1 and that was very good, no loss of quality
but i broke it a while ago and never replaced it,
im looking at getting another, is there any better ones on the market or as the hoya been improved
Click to expand...

If you want the best look at B+W or Heliopan. Both made with Schott glass and superb quality. The top class Hoya ones are indeed good but personally I much prefer these.

cheers
 
hollis_f said:
Not sure if that's true for lens flare, but it sure is true for added blurriness and problems with AF.
Click to expand...
Have a look at these:

without-uv.jpg


and:

with-uv.jpg


one with a filter, one without.......

The filter went in the bin........
 
arad85 said:
one with a filter, one without.......

The filter went in the bin........
Click to expand...

That's fine, but specifically what filter?

Cheapo filters can be absolutely awful but the top class ones very very good indeed.

No-one with any sense would argue that any filter would not degrade the IQ. The question must be can you see the degradation in real life?
 
Bill Roberts said:
That's fine, but specifically what filter?

Cheapo filters can be absolutely awful but the top class ones very very good indeed.

No-one with any sense would argue that any filter would not degrade the IQ. The question must be can you see the degradation in real life?
Click to expand...
B+W MRC Haze.... Yes, I could see the degredation. I couldn't figure out why I wasn't happy with my photos until I happened to take some pics with it off...
 
and said:
B+W MRC Haze.... Yes, I could see the degradation. I couldn't figure out why I wasn't happy with my photos until I happened to take some pics with it off...
Click to expand...

I can't say I'm not surprised, B+W are genuinely thought to be top quality unless you happen to have a fake. But I won't argue with your point of view at all.

I had the same problem with one of the cheaper Hoya's and a Canon 300mm lens, I just couldn't understand why it wasn't so good on IQ. I removed the filter and it was fine! But conversely a B+W UV made no difference at all.
 
don't think pros use filters
 
davep90 said:
don't think pros use filters
Click to expand...

Oh yes they do!

If you just happen to be in a war zone and you've got snot blood and guts flying your way, plus sand and various other crap then I'm sure you'll value a filter :lol:

For most other folks it's pretty much optional...

cheers
 
Bill Roberts said:
I can't say I'm not surprised, B+W are genuinely thought to be top quality unless you happen to have a fake.
Click to expand...
Always possible - but then you would say that if you were a fan of filters ;)

Having said that, I tend to be in fairly benign surroundings, so I feel the "risk" of no fiter is worth it...
 
Bill Roberts said:
Oh yes they do!

If you just happen to be in a war zone and you've got snot blood and guts flying your way, plus sand and various other crap then I'm sure you'll value a filter :lol:

For most other folks it's pretty much optional...

cheers
Click to expand...

exactly
 
But who here uses them in a war zone? Hands up please? (apart from Arcady who is now absent!).
 
It was the point above so yes.
 
I always use Hoya / Kenko Pro 1 filters and I'm very happy with IQ of all my lenses. I suspect I wouldn't notice a huge difference with the front element naked.

I have observed an interesting artifact with longer lenses (300 f4 IS L and 400 f5.6L) where an entry level Hoya UV did not effect subject image quality but gave a horrid diagonal jagged look to the bokeh.

Phil
 
How?
davep90 said "don't think pros use filters "

Which while not wanting to insult davep90 is clearly rubbish.

Who if anyone on here is currently working in a war zone and is or is not using filters it totally irrelevant.
 
Bill Roberts said:
How?
davep90 said "don't think pros use filters "

Which while not wanting to insult davep90 is clearly rubbish.

Who if anyone on here is currently working in a war zone and is or is not using filters it totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You're the one who mentioned war zones FFS
 
Yes I did, just to make the point that pros DO use them.
But I'd guess like every other thread on filters it's split about 50/50 :)

We'll never agree on it
 
Bill Roberts said:
Yes I did, just to make the point that pros DO use them.
But I'd guess like every other thread on filters it's split about 50/50 :)

We'll never agree on it
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a cyclical as well as a circular argument. Some people see them as necessary protection and some of us can't afford them
 
malo50 said:
It does seem to be a cyclical as well as a circular argument. Some people see them as necessary protection and some of us can't afford them
Click to expand...

To be honest it's never ending.
I sometimes try to avoid posting on threads asking about filters and to be fair there's no one real argument either way.

Only an idiot would say than ANY filter won't degrade the image, but it's whether the degradation can actually be seen in real life. Sometimes it can at other times not. I don't mind a bit of fun about it, but I'm hardly likely to fall out with anyone on the issue.

cheers
Bill
 
Bill Roberts said:
How?
davep90 said "don't think pros use filters "

Which while not wanting to insult davep90 is clearly rubbish.

Who if anyone on here is currently working in a war zone and is or is not using filters it totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Jeez do you forget what you write as quickly as that?

If you can't see the point and the rebuff, I won't push the argument. As I said to the OP, do a search on here and soon enough the arguments against them become apparent. I'm disappointed that common sense doesn't spell it out for most people though.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Jeez do you forget what you write as quickly as that?

If you can't see the point and the rebuff, I won't push the argument. As I said to the OP, do a search on here and soon enough the arguments against them become apparent. I'm disappointed that common sense doesn't spell it out for most people though.
Click to expand...

Jim, agree to disagree? We're clearly on totally opposite sides on the filter issue ;)
 
Lol I do agree to disagree!
 
Think of it this way.

Why spend loads of money on a lens, then stick a cheap piece of glass infront of it. The lens then becomes as cheap as the filter.

:)
 
philthejuggler said:
I have observed an interesting artifact with longer lenses (300 f4 IS L and 400 f5.6L) where an entry level Hoya UV did not effect subject image quality but gave a horrid diagonal jagged look to the bokeh.

Phil
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what my B+W did... looked like the background had been rendered with a palette knife...
 
davep90 said:
don't think pros use filters
Click to expand...

Thorsten Milste was speaking at the Canon Pro Solutions seminars in 2010. He was shooting desert elephants in the Namib desert, known for having lots of sand and strong winds. When asked if he used filter to protect his lenses in such harsh conditions he said that he never used them because he found the impact on image quality was too great.

Yes, I'm sure lots of pros do use them. But can anybody give an example of a top-quality pro, not somebody who does the odd wedding, who is on the record as always using a filter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top